Don't see the point of this side note other than attempting to distance yourself from my proposed causes of gun crime.
Just to illustrate that what happens wit guns laws is quite a different outcome t what the average person thinks.
1) You assume you have gauged the individual as a legitimate target in an objective way
2) You assume you will be in a position to make a controlled response in a timely manner
3) You assume the intruder will not retaliate with equal or superior force
4) You assume the intruder has not scouted you out before making his move to minimize your ability to carry out all previous points.
From your previous comments I think you fantasize with the idea of pointing guns at people and use the notion of self-defense to legitimize it. The legislation was aimed to weed out people like you but it obviously failed because well, people can lie about their intentions. A legislation made toothless by individuals not sincere in their intentions.
You are like our Greenies, won't answer the question.
Consider your first point
1) You assume you have gauged the individual as a legitimate target in an objective way
Well, he has broken into the house, that makes it pretty clear. If he breaks into the house then intent is not good. Why when his intent is not good should I have to be placed in a position that is not good.
You seem to think that if someone breaks into a house they have some sort of rights. As far as I am concerned once someone breaks into the house all rights are gone.
3) You assume the intruder will not retaliate with equal or superior force
Just the opposite. If someone breaks into the house then it should be assumed that any bad intent on their part is possible. On the other hand you seem to assume he is some poor misguided person whose mother treated him badly when he was kid and you should just accept it and take what he does as your contribution to his welfare.
Of course the reality is if there is an intruder you shoot to kill. Then no court case. The second reality in my case is the only way a person would break into the house if he was on drugs or a complete nut case. The reason being is it is too obvious that the house is heavily armed and well prepared. Thus if i have an intruder he will be either on drugs or a nut case and so needs to be dealt with accordingly.
In the case of other home owners, well....we get to read about them in the paper each day in Sydney.
and
4) You assume the intruder has not scouted you out before making his move to minimize your ability to carry out all previous points.
As I said above, if he breaks in then he is a case to be dealt with. If he only wants to steal the laptop etc then another house will be a better prospect.
With the exception of the nut case etc. my approach, unlike yours, avoids the problem up front. However, unlike you, I know if he breaks in he is a nut case or spun out on drugs. You don't know that.
But we come back to the opening post. You want to stop me. But I don't want to force you to protect yourself, that is your business.